Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-003
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/21/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/04/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Approval of the WASH Report is required prior to Tentative Plat approval. Additional information is required. Revise the Plant/Habitat Inventory to identify all subject vegetation in the study area. Revise the mitigation plan to provide mitigation for all plants removed. Summarize mitigation requirements in a seperate section of the landscape plan or provide a seperate mitigation plan. Resubmittal of all plans is required. |
| 10/04/2004 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross, CDRC SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos Lots 1-595 Tentative Plat Review REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 4 October 2004 CDRC #: S04-003 T15S, R14E, Sec. 8 Resubmittals Required: Revised Drainage Report, Revised Watercourse Amenities Safety and Habitat (W.A.S.H.) Report, Revised Tentative Plat, and one copy of the Soils Report. SUMMARY: The drainage report must contain analysis and detailed discussion of infiltration test results. See previous drainage report comment # 7 (18 February 2004 review), # 12 (21 April review) and the 9 July 2004 drainage report comment. The basin designs are not approvable, given the infiltration rates provided. If revisions to retention/detention basin locations or configurations are necessary to achieve infiltration/disposal rates that do not exceed maximum allowed disposal rates; revisions to the Tentative Plat may be necessary, depending on the nature and extent of proposed modifications. This matter must be resolved prior to recommendation for Tentative Plat approval. Approval of the WASH report must also be recommended prior to Tentative Plat approval. The WASH report is not recommended for approval at this time. A response letter from TMHS was not provided with this submittal, as was indicated in resubmittal correspondence. Revisions and additions have been made to the plat since the previous review, some of which are addressed below. See additional comments by Landscape Review Section. TENTATIVE PLAT: 1. Identify and label the proposed turnaround adjacent to Campbell Avenue, west of Basin 5 (Sheet 2). Please address the intent of this turnaround in a response letter. 2. Specify the easement boundary depicted that intersects with Campbell Ave. just south of the apparent turnaround, extending eastward to Tucson Boulevard, across the northern portion of the site (drainage easement?). Include/reference recording information on the plat. 3. Please include a safety/barricade railing in Section D/5 and any other applicable sections, or provide labeling or a general note for such. 4. Please include Retention/Detention Basin inlets, and outlet weir details on the plat. This comment appears to have been overlooked previously. Items of particular importance, with excerpts of previous comments are as follow: a) provide retention/detention basin spillway inlet and outlet weir details, fully labeled and dimensioned….with critical elevations provided in all cases, for each basin; b) provide clear depiction of the proposed conveyance mechanism, with discharge location indicated for outflow from basin 5, fully labeled and dimensioned with elevations provided - see (a) above, and comment 6, below; c) include a detail for the Basin 5 spillway/tie-in to the proposed north-south channel; d) …the plat must include complete outlet weir details for each basin - fully labeled and dimensioned…; 5. Identify/label and dimension all proposed paths depicted on the Plat. Provide safety/barricade railing at all locations where the path approaches the edge of the Rodeo Wash top of bank, and any other locations where pedestrian/bicyclist safety will be of similar concern (adjacent to vertical exposures, esp.). 6. Identify/label the revised outlet weir location for Basin 5. 7. Revise/omit reference to the two 6" bleed pipes for Basin 6. The drainage report must address basin percolation requirements, in response to the Summary paragraph and drainage report comment #1. 8. Provide a description for all shading that has been added to the plat. 9. Depict any revisions to retention/detention basin configurations or locations, in response to drainage report comments below. DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Previous drainage report comments referring to soils report requirements with infiltration test results, and analysis/discussion in the drainage report have not yet been adequately addressed. Provide discussion and analysis in the drainage report for retention/detention basin percolation rates, demonstrating conformance with maximum allowed times of disposal, per Section 3.5.1.3 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual (see original comment of 18 February 2004, stating: "The Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual requires that a soils report be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall address at a minimum soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability and ground water elevations. Infiltration test results shall be included with the report, demonstrating the drain time for retained stormwater for any proposed basin does not exceed the maximum disposal time allowed. Testing should be performed in accordance with the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District's recommended procedures. Discuss results in the drainage report (Section 3.5.1, SMDDFM - DS 10-01.0)". Shallower basins and the use of other engineering measures (such as engineered basins) should be investigated prior to requesting the use of a bleed-off. 2. The drainage report must address flow conveyance into the detention basins, as they appear to be affected by the 12' asphalt path. Elevations on the plat indicate discharge from Basin 1 will be conveyed westerly (south of the 12' asphalt path) into Basin 2. Basin 2 discharge will be conveyed westerly into Basin 3 - and so on, until reaching the pedestrian t-intersection (trail/path convergence), northeast of Basin 5. Detention basin routing and design contained in the report does not incorporate this apparent revision to flow conveyance onsite. All basin routing and designs must be revised to account for this revision, or, the report and plat must demonstrate these flows will be adequately conveyed under/over the asphalt path, without being conveyed into adjacent basins. Proposed design solutions must be depicted on the Tentative Plat. WASH REPORT: 1. Provide a detail or details in the report, fully labeled and dimensioned, for the West Channel/Rodeo Wash confluence. The details must be included on the Tentative Plat. 2. Submit a mitigation plan addressing all proposed disturbances in the Resource Area, and addressing all Landscape Review Section comments GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Tentative Plat may not be recommended for approval prior to complete approval of the WASH report. 2. The Tentative Plat may not be recommended for approval without clear demonstration in the drainage report that acceptable infiltration rates will be achieved in all retention/detention basins. 3. Resubmittal will require a response letter, a revised drainage report, a revised Tentative Plat, and a revised WASH Report, addressing all comments provided above. 4. Please contact me to schedule a meeting. Preferably, remaining review agency(ies) representatives will be included , should this be desired If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Doug Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 10/04/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |